The
formation of a global government requires very careful planning. A global
system must, like all existing political systems, have its own bureaucratic
structure for enforcing its own idea of justice. It also needs a philosophical
foundation for its principles, its laws, and its social and foreign policy.
For as much scrutiny as the global government gets from people around
the world, it's amazing how little attention is paid to the actual emerging
system.

The
front-runner for becoming the emerging supra-national synthesis of all
nations is called communitarianism. The communitarian philosophy is already
established as the basis for the laws, the regional plans, and the expanded
enforcement actions necessary to full integration.

Widespread
ignorance of communitarianism and denial of the existence of an emerging
global legal system has allowed every program necessary to achieve full
implementation, unhindered by press or public scrutiny. The vast majority
of citizens of the United States do not know what it means when their
legislatures say they are "balancing" their laws. They never question
why there must be a balance between individual rights and community rights.
This "news" can be printed on the front page of American newspapers and
not an eyebrow will raise. The new American mantra is that rights to privacy
and anonymity have to be balanced against the community's need for greater
homeland security, and gee, while they're at it, they may as well go ahead
and protect the environment and provide social equity too.

Our
citizens have not been told that open borders, protected land and water,
free trade, citizen advisory councils, domestic spying, reaching consensus,
public-private partnerships, sustainable development, exporting democratic
freedom, and enforcing the global common good is as un-American as buying
British merchant's tea. The U.S. National Guard says it protects the "common
good" right on TV. It's a tragedy that our people do not understand either
the ideology or the roots for all the important words used to define American
laws.

The
term homeland was used in the 1930s to describe a position of the Austrian
Minister Zernatto who negotiated terms with the Nazis. Today homeland
is a Russian political party and is also used to describe all of Russia.
In 2002, Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan wrote , "The name Homeland
Security grates on a lot of people, understandably. Homeland isn't
really an American word, it's not something we used to say or say now."
( answers.com)

We have
a whole war named for Terrorism, and yet we have never been taught the
word "terrorist" comes from the Jacobin freemasons who established the
usefulness of terror tactics to achieve sweeping political goals in 1789
France. We surely have never been told the term "civil society" originated
with the Jacobin's revolutionary idealists. Would it come as any surprise
to hear the term "ideology" also originated in 18 th century France?

Our
government has described its efforts in Iraq as rebuilding a communitarian
system in the Middle East, yet this term never comes up in congressional
debates, nor is it part of the anti-war speeches. It's not even part of
the calls for Bush and Cheney's impeachment. How can so many people be
opposed to the current administration's polices and wars, be so upset
over congressional passage of the Patriot Act and the Amnesty idea, be
so suspicious of the WTO, and yet not be the slightest bit interested
in the actual ideology behind the wars and the laws, let alone the entire
concept for global domination over every nation's marketplace?

How
is it possible that educated Americans cannot see there is a recurring
theme inherent in all new actions that alter national systems, regardless
of whether the changes are violent invasions or are quietly adopted into
regulatory law just under the local radar? Maybe they've heard it so many
times from so many public officials' lips that they assume it's a good
thing to rebuild a moral community based in shared values. It sounds so
lovely, doesn't it? Anyone opposed would have to be immoral with selfish
values, wouldn't they?

The
communitarian language is peppered with quite lovely phrases that define
a perfect utopian world where everyone is treated with respect and dignity,
and everybody shares. This is the final synthesis of all political, economic,
social, and religions theories, so it gets to use all their highest sounding
goals and platitudes. The bottom line to achieving perfection (a topic
which must never be broached) is that American liberty and property cannot
long exist without a communitarian perspective (Etzioni). Americans may
never be told why their new internationally decreed human rights also
carries with it a new legal requirement to perform new duties that are
part of a global citizen's responsibilities (Giacomazzi).

Communitarianism
is duality magnified by a million times a trillion. It embraces every
purpose and mouths the promises made by every prophet and alchemist since
the dawn of man. It's designed to become the global justice system and
the global religion, so it also must claim to want consensus from each
nation and church. This all inclusive philosophy is how they explain they
can protect individual rights at the same time they strip them all away.
Some sacrifices must be made for the common good. It's the end that matters,
it's the end that justifies the means. Violence was always part of their
plan to create a peaceful world. Some diehard nations have to be violently
subdued. Other nations led by more pragmatic, business classes can be
convinced to adapt their morals to allow for organized nepotism and graft.
We have arrived at the grand convergence of all humanity; it's the ultimate
bi-partisan consensus. This is the perfectly planned transcendent triumph
of alchemy over instinct.

Communitarian
law is a large part of the "continuous development of norms." This is
the designated supreme law in the European Union. This is the legal principles
for the Earth Charter. This is the moral purpose for the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. And it changes constantly, rarely in the open, so that
few people can ever claim to understand it.

"Secondly, there
are entire new areas of international law which need to be thoroughly
studied, followed on a daily basis, and almost constantly translated
into the domestic legal system. A good example of this is the continuous
development of norms protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms,
rights of minorities, environmental law, communitarian law, etc. Such
developments impose another important aspect on the work of a good legal
adviser in a democratic, law-abiding country: that of contributing to
the further development of international law. I shall quote my former
British colleague Sir Arthur Watts who wrote very explicitly about it:
"Since there is no legislature, it (international law) changes essentially
through State practice - which means what Foreign Ministries do and
what Foreign Ministry legal advisers advise their Ministries it is lawful
for them to do. Since the law has to change in this way, it means that
States can, and do, break new ground and so contribute to the creation
of new law. A legal adviser, accordingly, may have to participate in
this process; and he may certainly, in appropriate circumstances, advise
that it will be lawful to do something which has never been done before,
or which would involve the development in a new direction of an existing
rule of international law. The circumstances of international life are
pressing, and even though a situation may have novel elements it cannot
be met with inaction; and novel situations may call for novel responses."
" (Nick Stanko, Chief Legal Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic
of Croatia)

In all
cases regarding individual rights against the common good, the common
good wins.

In order
to have an efficient global government, we need a higher global standard
that rules supreme over all nations (Garcia). This higher law has to have
the ultimate authority to enforce its decisions against anyone in the
world, from the small citizen property or business owner all the way up
to the President of the United States of America

The
EU constitution was supposed to be their legitimizing, crowning achievement.
It was designed to pave the way to a completely global communitarian system.
But it failed after Dutch and French voters rejected its supremacy clause.
So for the EU's 50 th birthday party, Big Mother took a novel approach
by trying to rally skeptical French and Dutch voters with a new Treaty
called the Berlin Declaration. By taking out the very word "constitution,"
EU leaders hope to sway European voters into accepting communitarian supremacy
of law.

"The signing of
the Berlin Declaration - a two-page document designed to rally skeptical
voters behind the EU in plain and uplifting language - was the centerpiece
of celebrations of the EU's 50th birthday, officially the anniversary
of the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 which founded the European
Economic Community, which became the EU. 'The declaration did not even
mention the word 'constitution,' a token of how controversial the issue
remains two years after French and Dutch voters blocked the charter
in 2005 referendums."("EU seeks way out of constitutional crisis at
birthday celebration" International Herald Tribune, 3/26/2007)

What
began as the "law of treaties" already crept into every national system
via regional trade agreements designed by Big Mother's representatives.
All modern trade groups are regulated by referring to established EU case
law. The legitimacy of supreme international ideals, while existing mainly
in the communitarian's skewed visionings, is slowly gaining in stature
and respect, due mainly to advertising it as the only "moral" court of
justice. The rest of us exist unaware in the era of "psychological jurisprudence."
(Fox 1990)

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Two
sets of opposing laws claim to rule supreme in the U.S. Supreme means
"greatest in status or authority or power." The Communitarian theory says
international law is supreme. When officials of the United States of America
cite the "Rule of Law" to justify their most unconstitutional acts, they
aren't referring to the U.S. Bill of Rights; it's been balanced.

References:

1,Abroadco
Study Abroad, Granada, Spain. POLS course includes: "Basic Principals
of Multi-National Constitutionalism in Europe. -National sovereignty sessions.
-Constitutional characteristics of treaties. -Characteristics of communitarian
rights: direct effect and supremacy of communitarian."2, Adler, Matthew D,. April 2006, "Constitutional
Fidelity, the Rule of Recognition, and the Communitarian Turn in Contemporary
Positivism" University of Pennsylvania Law School, Public Law Working
Paper No. 06-19, 3,www.answers.com/topic/homeland4, Altneuland: "The
Constitution of Europe in an American Perspective", April 28 - 30,
2004 A Joint Conference Organized by The Hauser Global Law School Program,
the Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice,
New York University School of Law, The Program in Law and Public Affairs,
and The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton
University 5, Etzioni Amitai, "Public
Health Law: A Communitarian Perspective" 6, GARC�A, Fernando
at Bolitin Mexicano: "The aim of this essay is to discuss some of
the legal problems (both at the constitutional and communitarian levels),
faced by the European Union, as a conse-quence of the process of integration
and its relation to domestic legal systems of the member States. In this
way, the article analyzes the way in which the Court of Justice has controled
the principle of the supremacy of communitarian law over domes-tic laws,
as well as over the principle of uniformity in its application, on the
basis of international intruments, common constitutional traditions and
general principles of communitarian law. In addition, the author explains
the role of national courts in the determination of constitutional limits
to the pro-cess of integration, mainly in what concerns issues such as
fundamental rights and the power to determine the jurisdiction limits
of communitarian institutions. Lastly, the author stresses the need to
establish a structure of the constitutional kind as a useful tool for
the effi-cacy of the process of integration. Descriptors: integration,
communitarian law, domestic law, European Union, supre-macy, uniformity.
7,Institute for
Communitarian Policy Studies, "Rights and Responsibilities"8, Lewis, J. "Communitarian
Theory"9,Malavet,
Professor, U.S. Territories Seminar, Notes, Part 5

Niki
Raapana is the co-founder of the Anti-Communitarian League (ACL), an online
research center for studying outside the box.

Niki
is also the recent author of the non-fiction biography, 2020. Unlike the
ACL website (which is a massive endeavor) 2020 introduces the global community
government in 100-pages using laymen's terms for average readers. Price:
$20.00, includes S&H. Send check or money order to: Nikki Raapana, HC
60 Box 329, Copper Center, Alaska 99573or
order online using PayPal at the ACL: http://nord.twu.net/aclE-Mail:nikiraapana@gmail.com